Well, this is beating a dead horse, but a few quick comments about the first two sentences:
Quote:
|
Energy can be an eternal system,
|
That doesn't even make sense, at least not without a lot of context and clarification which from the sound of things your source probably fails to provide. In mainstream physics, a "system" can possess "energy", but it would not be -identified with- "energy"--- this is quite irrespective of how long-lived the system might be!
Quote:
|
if you add an equal amount of energy on an object or energy it can go on in a circle for all eternity.
|
That's not even grammatical. And "go on in a circle for all eternity" is not standard language in physics.
Quote:
|
The energy from the apparent big bang comes from one dimensional point (due to an expanding universe)
|
Several things wrong there. To mention just one, the strong spacelike scalar curvature singularity which appears in most FRW models is not really something to which one can glibly assign a dimension. One thing one -can- do is to find a conformal chart which allows one to interpret it as a locus in a larger (artificially introduced) manifold, and thus to think of it as a kind of "boundary" to some region, but this gets pretty technical and what I just said could easily mislead someone who hasn't studied the mathematical treatment I am thinking of. (See Hawking and Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime.)
Quote:
|
which means not in a triangular way, and therefore couldn't be an eternal motion system.
|
"Triangular" and "eternal", "motion", and "system" all seem to be used here in vague, ambiguous but non-standard ways.
My verdict: clearly, the writings you are quoting from are too vapid to have any meaning. Or as Eta C, channeling Pauli (isn't that his portrait?), wrote: "not even wrong".
One other thing: most of you are probably well aware of the existence of cranky "creationist cosmologies" motivated by biblical literalism. But there are also quite a few crank cosmologies out there which appear to be motivated by other religions (?) such as Theosophy and Scientology. In particular cranky "cyclic cosmologies" are often propounded by followers of Theosophy and allied New Age movements, while cranky "ancient cosmologies" (trillions of years old) may be motivated by Scientology doctrines. All of these efforts are doomed to failure because they all ultimately attempt to use scripture to dictate to Nature rather than observing , theorizing, reobserving, and revising theory as needed (the hallmark of true science being its ability to adapt theory to observation, which is quite different from trying to force observations to fit a "mystically revealed" doctrine).